Dieckmann v. United States, No. 5942.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtEVANS and SPARKS, Circuit , and LINDLEY
Citation88 F.2d 902
Docket NumberNo. 5942.
Decision Date16 February 1937
PartiesDIECKMANN et al. v. UNITED STATES.

88 F.2d 902 (1937)

DIECKMANN et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 5942.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

February 16, 1937.


88 F.2d 903

Andrew W. Kops and R. E. Noelker, both of Batesville, Ind., for appellants.

Harry W. Blair, Asst. Atty. Gen., Val Nolan, U. S. Atty., of Indianapolis, Ind., and Ralph S. Boyd, Sp. Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court overruling appellants' objections to the complaint and appointing appraisers for the assessment of damages to their land. The action involved was a condemnation proceeding with respect to land for use in connection with a demonstration recreational project alleged to be authorized by title 2 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat. 195 (section 201 et seq., 40 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq.), and Executive Orders issued thereunder.

We are first confronted with appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is not from a final order as contemplated by section 128 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225.

No question is raised as to the government's right to exercise the power of eminent domain for all purposes set forth in the National Industrial Recovery Act, which are consonant with the Constitution, and it is conceded that if the purpose here involved is of that character and is within the purview of that Act, the right of eminent domain with respect to appellants' land, which lies in Indiana, must be exercised as near as may be, in conformity to the laws of that state, 40 U.S.C.A. § 258.

The pertinent sections of the Indiana statute are found in Burns' Annotated Statutes 1933, § 3-1705 (7684) et seq. This statute provides that any defendant may object in writing to such proceedings on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction either of the subject matter or of the person, or that the plaintiff has no right to exercise the power of eminent domain for the use sought, or for any other reason disclosed in the complaint or set up in such objections.

The statute further provides that if the land owner's objections to the complaint for condemnation are overruled, the court or judge shall appoint appraisers, and from such interlocutory order overruling such objections and appointing appraisers the land owner may appeal to the Supreme Court, but the appeal shall not stay the proceedings. Thereafter the appraisers shall determine and report the value of the land and improvement and the damage resulting to the owner by virtue of the appropriation. Either party may contest the amount of damages or benefits, and upon the evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land, No. 349.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 26, 1942
    ...& Belmont Bridge Co. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 138 U.S. 287, 290, 11 S.Ct. 301, 34 L.Ed. 967. But see Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F. 2d 902, 904, where, in denying appellate jurisdiction, the court noted that in the Wheeling & Belmont Bridge case, a question of constitutionality wa......
  • Catlin v. United States, No. 419
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1945
    ...Lebanon, 305 U.S. 558, 59 S.Ct. 84, 83 L.Ed. 352; Id., 305 U.S. 671, 59 S.Ct. 143, 83 L.Ed. 435; cf. Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 902. The foundation of this policy is not in merely technical conceptions of 'finality.' It is one against piece- Page 234 meal litigation. 'The c......
  • United States v. Dieckmann, No. 6572.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 13, 1939
    ...from the order of appointment, and this court, holding the appeal premature, dismissed it. See Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F. 2d 902. Thereafter the appraisers were unable to agree as to the appraisal, and a second group of appraisers was appointed, again over the objections of a......
  • Big Horn Coal Co. v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co., SHERIDAN-WYOMING
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 21, 1950
    ...U.S. 558, 59 S.Ct. 84, 83 L.Ed. 352; [67 Wyo. 313] Id., 305 U.S. 671, 59 S.Ct. 143, 83 L.Ed. 435; cf. Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 902. The foundation of this policy is not in merely technical conceptions of 'finality.' It is one against piece-meal litigation. 'The case is no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land, No. 349.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 26, 1942
    ...& Belmont Bridge Co. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 138 U.S. 287, 290, 11 S.Ct. 301, 34 L.Ed. 967. But see Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F. 2d 902, 904, where, in denying appellate jurisdiction, the court noted that in the Wheeling & Belmont Bridge case, a question of constitutionality wa......
  • Catlin v. United States, No. 419
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1945
    ...Lebanon, 305 U.S. 558, 59 S.Ct. 84, 83 L.Ed. 352; Id., 305 U.S. 671, 59 S.Ct. 143, 83 L.Ed. 435; cf. Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 902. The foundation of this policy is not in merely technical conceptions of 'finality.' It is one against piece- Page 234 meal litigation. 'The c......
  • United States v. Dieckmann, No. 6572.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 13, 1939
    ...from the order of appointment, and this court, holding the appeal premature, dismissed it. See Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F. 2d 902. Thereafter the appraisers were unable to agree as to the appraisal, and a second group of appraisers was appointed, again over the objections of a......
  • Big Horn Coal Co. v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co., SHERIDAN-WYOMING
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 21, 1950
    ...U.S. 558, 59 S.Ct. 84, 83 L.Ed. 352; [67 Wyo. 313] Id., 305 U.S. 671, 59 S.Ct. 143, 83 L.Ed. 435; cf. Dieckmann v. United States, 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 902. The foundation of this policy is not in merely technical conceptions of 'finality.' It is one against piece-meal litigation. 'The case is no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT